Talk:Marshall Rogers

Detective Comics

The Steve Englehast page, and Englehasrt's official site, say that he wrote Detective up to 476. -- Beardo 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Page needs a clean up and clearer writing

Added some minor edits with a consolidated reference.

Thanx!

Panix comics (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

Someone want to re-work this so the covers are examples of his style rather than a decorative gallery?

Thanks - J Greb 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's edits

A new editor, User:Panix comics, has begun edit-warring after the revert of non-constructive, unexplained and now contentious edits to BLP article. The version I reverted contained unexplained deletions of pertinent content, non-encyclopedic WP:TONE and other issues. By linking to the editor in this post, I am attempting to initiate discussion, as I also asked for in my most recent edit-summary. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? Every edit was explained in the edit comments and the article was vastly improved. Nothing was deleted, and important information was added. There woulkdn't be a need to make any changes if the article was organized properly and if Terry Austin was properly recognized as the essential inker to the Detective Stories and adequate mention was made of the Mister Miracle Material.

Why are you edit warring? Panix comics (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW - Rogers is dead, so what are you talking about ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panix comics (talk • contribs) 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As noted, the changes include as follows:

• Accreditation of the collaboration for det #476 etc
• Addition of the important work done with Mister Miracle
• tethered apart the confusing confluence between biographical information and his comic career, such as it is in most biographies.
• fixed the lousy grammar that existed, including several run on sentences.
• added a legacy section which describes why this individual is even important and deserves an entry

added dispute resolution on the page to the Arts, Media, Architecture section.

Panix comics (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous version of this article strung together different aspects of the career of Rogers in his biography. And then it failed to include vital works of the artist, and an essential collaborator. I fixed this and then it was reverse make false claims as to me not identifying the reasons for the edits, and then the user reversing these edits claimed that we are dealing with a living persons biography, when the artist has been dead since 2007. While suggestions on improvement is welcome, he seems intent on zero sum rollbacks and refuses discussion or compromise.

Please comment on the changes in the biography in the new version, instead of the old version and please comment on the sentence structure and grammar and help us chose a path for this article.

Panix comics (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Invalid RfC

Panix comics has attempted to create an RfC without a neutral statement or question, but rather his own personal take. He also violated WP:BRD by unilaterally reverting to his contentious edits without consensus. And BLP, incidentally, also applies to article subjects recently dead. 2007 may or may not count as recently — it's certainly more recent than untold thousands of historical figures — but WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and other policies still apply.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The RFC is not nuetral and it up to you to decide that anyway. The RFC is in effect and you are not supposed to revert it. I have seeked consensus. Why are you afraid of getting outsiders to mediate. You do not own this article. And why defend run on sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panix comics (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. I've simply pointed out that your intemperate post violates WP:RfC protocol, which states, "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template." You haven't done anything of the sort. And someone who says, "I have seeked consensus" is not anyone who should be editing anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can we get this focused on the content of the article and not the conduct of the editors? I think it might help if, rather than sweeping revisions, Panix comics were to propose some smaller edits that can be more easily evaluated. Also, ten years is long enough that Rogers is not recently deceased, so WP:BLP guidelines do not reply—but general rules on reliable sources do. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, C.Fred, and I would love to do that. Panix comics, could we please do that here? Discuss and seek consensus? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae We can discuss it here, but you just violated the RFC and put your own version back. When you do this, in violation of the rules, I don't see you as a partner in this. You just reverted against the rules, a corrected version to a version that would get a big fat F in a 4th grade NYC public school home work assignment. Now, I ask to, please, revert back to the corrected version and then we can work together and fix your objections. Forget the rules, it is just rude to do a blanket roll back without constructive commentary or addressing the issues that brought the changes to begin with. I think we can all agree that such behavior is nonconstructive.

Panix comics (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles edits are broken down for ease of discussion individual aspects of the edit. I would just like to comment, that as a person who has done limited professional editing, the seeked|sought dichotomy has been controversial among American English Speaking scholars...and a little less so in London. However, today it is considered acceptable. "sought" might actually even be considered archaic because, since the 1950s its usage has diminished greatly. Regardless of that, I earmarked, if I recall correctly, 3 run on sentences, 3 misplaced modifies, a misuse of an adverb and the failure of a proper use of a transition phase or two. These are common English problems in articles and papers, especially among younger writers, or those less practiced with written communication. The way references are embedded in these articles, also makes these kinds of errors more common. But they really have important impact (and yes you can dig up on that word usage now) on common readability.

You need to separate his general biographical information and his career information as they are in almost all important biographies. Many biographies also separate the subjects educational background, and end with a death section. I think the reason for the mishmash here is that the section was nearly cut and pasted out of the referenced sources. Those sources, including the interviews, are rather informal, but here there needs to be a more rigid organization of the information.

Panix comics (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument over "seeked" — it's wrong in American English, and even something as prosaic as Merriam-Webster will verify that. Or even a simple Google search. And while I would like to take you at your word that you've done any "professional editing", things like "English Speaking scholars", "The articles edits" and "the subjects educational background" make me wonder about that. If nothing else, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with our Manual of Style and our guidelines for writing biographies.

Be that as it may — and incidentally, I am far from a "younger writer", I'm afraid! — I appreciate your willingness to discuss and collaborate. Thank you for that.

I am correct about seeked, and publishing houses gave included it as accepted standard since the late 1980's. But not withstanding that, did you return the version of the article? As much as I want to proceed with this discussion and explain this to you in greater detail, and here your ideas, it is very difficult to discuss this with the incorrect version remaining. Even the starting run on sentence starts from the wrong point.

Just one onther point, if you permit me. Google search results are not valid talking points or evidence of either academic or factual correctness. All to often one hears, "A google search can show you this, or google says that. Search engine results can be useful tools, but hardly are any evidence of anything. I have access to an academic library. If you wish it, I might be able to share it.

Panix comics (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Humorously, just fwiw, here is a link to published scholarly works what use 'seeked' ... from google :)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=seeked&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33

Panix comics (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits

Lead

The first thing I would ask is why remove the last part of the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to encapsulate that for which a subject is notable. The phrase and the sentence you removed ("...in the 1970s, particularly as one of the illustrators of Batman and the Silver Surfer. In addition, Rogers illustrated one of the first graphic novels, Detectives Inc. (1979).") are both factual, contextual and in perspective.

Just to show good faith, the lead sentence(s) needs to be a summary, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a run on sentence, difficult to read, or contain frivolous information. The focus here is to tell the reader what is significant about Marshall Rogers and it doesn't need to include all his accomplishments. Good editing always trims what is not needed in order to accomplish its goal. The details of this would follow. Now, I tried to edit around what was already written, so I don't necessarily get a result I would use myself. I compromised. Otherwise, the introduction would be more encapsulating, and outline any awards he might have received and his core accomplishment. I don't know what awards he might have won. Maybe I should ask his wife or co-workers who are still around. But a generally good rough lead in paragraph should looks something roughly like:

Marshall Rogers (born date, death date), was a well renown comic book artist, and comic book creator who, who worked for DC, Marel and independent publishers. He was most active during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s. In that time, he won xyz awards and recognition by his peers, and he is most closely remembered for his collaborative efforts with xyz and abc, with the Batman (Batman has a the, like the Bronx).

I took the other points out of the intro because Rogers because it wasn't needed here. His Silver Surfer work was particularly not defining of him as a creator. He made his name first and foremost for the Batman work he did. Just as Gil Kane is know for Green Lantern, and Steve Ditko is knows for Spider-man, and Neil Gaiman is known for the Sandman, Rogers is known for his Detective Comics run. If he was Jack Kirby, you would need a longer list, "Being the artistic arm that launched Marvel Comics silver age and was most famous for his co-creation of the the Fantastic Four and and Captain America... but for Rogers, he is most associated with the Batman. When I saw the addition of the Silver Surfer, I just removed them both since they are covered by the fact that he is an artist who works for DC and Marvel..and the details are to come. But if you are going to mention any specific work, he was known for his Batman work.

And that is more or less all that is needed. On a separate point, there is no reason to get hung up on the description of NYC. One should never write

XYZ was born in the Gunhill section of the borough of the Bronx in New York City, NY, or some variation of that. It is enough to say, XZY was born in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, if the neighborhood is important, or just Brooklyn NY. You don't want to clutter the sentence with unessential information that detracts from the meaning of the sentence. It was also, IMO, important for those not familiar with the NYC suburbs to know that Ardsley is a wealthy NYC suburb in Westchester. That would not be common knowledge and it says something about his upbringing. I agree that the date of birth is not necessary here but it gives a specific meaning to the circumstances of his birth and how he was raised. Queens in the 1950's is a specific time and place, and not the same as Queens in 2018. Also, the sentence needs to be readable, and that just seemed like a good way to launch into the paragraphs details, rather than just vomiting all up all the stats at the user, and let them parse it out for themselves.

Panix comics (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammar and second paragraph

Secondly, there are both grammatical and MOS errors in your sentence "Rogers Born in Flushing, Queens, NY on Jan. 22, 1950,but grew up in upstate suburb of Ardsley, N.Y." I don't believe that sentence should replace the extant "William Marshall Rogers III was born in the Flushing neighborhood of the New York City borough of Queens, and raised there and in Ardsley, New York." (The birth date is in the lead, and repeating it here is fine, if not usually done, if you'd like to add it.)

You are correct. That sentence needs a rewrite:

"Rodgers was born in Flushing Queens, NY on January 22, 195, but grew up the Westchester suburb of Ardsely, NY" Using his formal name is not needed, and clumsy. It is mentioned once at the top. We can use the NY Times protocol and call him Mr Rogers... assuming Fred Rogers hasn't reserved that name of all Rogers for all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panix comics (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What are your thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My thought at this point is that you are very insulting and incapable of any collaboration. Please do not send me any more nasty emails or put anything on my talk page. I do not want any conversation with you that is not public. I am dividing this up so that it is easier to edit. Please do not change it. I am changing your invalid rfc because is it false propaganda. Only change it if you want to be insulting. Try focusing on the content for a change, and answering my replies to you about the content, and worry less about throwing your weight around and being insulting. I know you find it difficult to work with anyone, but you started this. I was happy to just take grammatical and spelling errors to what I published, and to await for reasonable criticism. You opted instead to nuke everything.

Panix comics (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:C.Fred - this might be a good time for some reasonable mediation. Panix comics (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I will also say, just to give another bone to you Tenebrae in an effort to make peace and have a constructive discussion, that, if you read what I wrote, I think you made some valid points, especially about the grammatical error, which, BTW, you could have just fixed instead of nuking it. I left you points to discuss and openings for compromise. You ball is in your court. Panix comics (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What in the RFC seems not neutral to you?

173.52.38.97 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Replaced improvements

With the stall in the discussion, I've put the improvements back and I welcome any corrective edits to the spelling and grammar. I am still willing to address any of the changes, and make or agree with adjustments as per discussions. My main goal is to ease readability, improve some basic left out facts, and to organize more in line with all other biographies. Thank you Panix comics (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Panix is a bad writer, but had at least one valid point: the lead was a bit of a collection. I have re-reverted their changes and gone through making my own rather less sweeping ones. I offer this as an alternative rewrite. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Panix comics' behavior

I have asked Panix comics on his talk page not to edit my comments by changing my subhead and by confusingly inserting his comments within my own. He blatantly added a subhead ("refusal to collaberate" [sic]" above one of my sentences ("What are your thoughts?") that he deliberately separated from a larger post.

As well, I missed being on this talk page for exactly one day, after User:C.Fred urged us to collaborate, and my attempting to do so and asking for his thought, and for my being absent a single day he accused me of refusing to collaborate and unilaterally reverted to his contentious, poorly written and non-MOS version with the barely comprehensible edit summary "RFC and refusal to colab or discus." [sic].

I think any experienced editor reading the discussion on this page will agree Panix comics and his apparent IP address 173.52.38.97 are behaving badly. It's time to begin an ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Panix comics, it turns out, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Mrbrklyn, who himself had been blocked for a month for extensive sock-puppetry a couple of days ago. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Eclipse logo

in a Mister Miracle comic drawn by him, there is a use of the word "Eclipse" as a story name, with a stylized logo of the word. its remarkably similar to the Eclipse comics logo. pretty sure marshall designed it then. but have no evidence for this found.50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)